Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you think the problem is. Is the problem the overall average of 40/40/20 split of Loyalty Settings? 

But then there's the flip side, people who are just playing for themselves not a family and set to disloyal for shits and giggles or to deliberately harm a CL they dislike because of previous accounts.

Why is every little thing the onus of the CL, it's not hard for a member to simply ask a question on what is required to leave, have you actually had any complaints from user that they are being held captive? or is it just this skewed loyal/disloyal stat that you yourself admit you've never really looked at until you realised was causing a bug?

I'm wondering how much of the Disloyalty % right now is based on the 2x factor of Dead Made Men+ who had theirs as Disloyal. I feel like it might not be an accurate representation at all. 

I can't speak for everyone but I personally speak to all members who I feel have earned the rank of made man before I give them their button, true it's not very true to role play but I give my members a choice when I'm a CL and I let them know if they accept they're in it for the long haul.

Is there any old data that you would be able to use in order to obtain an estimate of the average Loyalty %'s in the past? 

Hrm. That information is probably gone when HQ's are disbanded I would imagine. Nvm. 

Just to clarify, I'm all for adding in a spot in the Crew Details for CL's to pick from a sliding scale of "leaving the crew acceptability". It can't hurt anything and could improve something. However, I think it would be beneficial to collect more data about the average Loyalty %s across the board over a longer period of time - as Tetley stated, there are a number of Users who set their status as Disyloyal just for the "lols" which may cause disproportionate statistics in regards to the viewpoint of "members being stuck in a shitty situation". 

You forget that CLs are strongly advised to have active sponsors who reach out to new members and provide a house to them. 

A CL should get to know their Sponsors before just handing over the reins to adding people into the fold. If your sponsors know what is expected of those to be added into the crew, then this shouldn't really be an issue. Furthermore, shouldn't you be checking in with your sponsors to see how relationships with their associates are coming along? This still seems like it would be a way to encourage further involvement from the touted role of Crew Leader.

Leadership shouldn't be an easy road. 

A few comments (I’m sorry, I will read other comments, but haven’t finished them yet.):

first, IF it’s set up so X percent of MADE+ ONLY (MAYBE Wise guys, but no lower.. possibly with a “as long as there are X number of Made in the family, then calculate based on their percent, else, calculate percent with Wise guys Loyalty as well”) are set to disloyal, it might work better, as it would allow for dupe checks and time for the CL to feel people out... or, maybe have an option to “be loyal to X hand” and if they have enough support, they can push a button and take over...

My second thought is that this might cause massive wars still, because CLs often have CL friends, and having a mutiny in the next district over might look bad... And, frankly.. this could go both ways, as people could see it as the will of the people and give the new CL a chance, or it’ll mean CLs have to be doubly picky about hands. Furthermore, Often RHs are close friends of the CL.. it would definitely give wait to the mutiny if the hands joined forces with the crew to displace the CL in that case.... BUT in those cases, would the RH be any better? Should there be a choice as to WHO the members choose to follow after usurping the thrown?

and last comment.. this would definitely mean hands HAVE to be made+. Maybe don’t limit the LH... but if the right can take the thrown, they need to be able to hold the station. 

Speaking of loyalty points, has the take a bullet option every kicked in? 

In the twoish years that I have been back playing, not even one time have I see any issue whatsoever about an under-made person leaving a crew.  Virtually always made+ are also allowed to leave to get a position in the upper structure.  Sometimes others just move with compensation, or because they ask.  It's almost always all fine.  If someone asks to leave my crew, they are clearly not loyal enough to me, sooo why would I try to make them stay? 

There are incentives to be a good crew leader, of course there are.  Better crew leaders have better trained members, they get more donations, they have more fun because they are interacting and working with their family.  In a war or rogue situation, they have many people who they know they can count on to help them take care of things.  

Having slept on it, I still think it's a terrible change.  All this will achieve is holding crew leaders to ransom and not to task like you might think it will. I'm all for putting leaders to task, but implementation of a feature that can and will be used in a way that the crew leader has no real protection against should a group of people purposely join one faction with the intent to make this happen, regardless of if the crew leader is brilliant or not. 

I'm still all for "the rank up and do something about it" adding this feature takes away from anyone/people/groups actualy having to put the work in to change something that they are unhappy with. Where is the balance here? What can the crew leader do to protect them selves? 

But that is sort of also what happens when someone wants to leave a crew, despite putting more into it than getting in return - they get killed or a negative word is put out if they want to leave.  Most don't because it will result in negative consequences. 

I don't know how true this is actually is anymore. On this account I've been pretty i.a. however in the time I've been active, people have moved families with ease. There has been no issues whatsoever. Look at the 10 Ann crew stuff, kirsty and Billy tool members for fun. 

Put crew has had people join from other families too, with very little issue. Like wise, we have let people go under the same pretences.  

So the way I have read this, there are two features you can discuss:

1. HQ Passed Down

2. Loyalty Rating Impact.

HQ Passed Down
I think you are onto something here, it is a significant game change in terms of strategy.

However,  If you think about it, if a CL was toppled in the mob, usually the RHM would take over. 

So perhaps there is something where a HQ belongs to the CL, RHM & LHM also and if the CL dies it does get passed down to those three until all three are no longer. 

But, I would say this needs to be limited to a select few, otherwise in war you could keep passing it down forever. 

Loyalty Rating Impact.

Another dynamic shift for the game, but a great concept.

The loyalty aspect is open to abuse, hence CL's should be selective over members they invite.
Just like life, bloodlines may carry grudges. It's up to the CL's to be inclusive and try working out any problems. 

My solution to the issues raised so far would be that loyalty cannot oust a CL directly.

However, it could increase the opportunity for internal take overs - so the math aspect would be something like: someone with a negative loyalty rating gets a bonus increase to their wack stats (based on negativity %) for shots on own crew members only. However, conversely people with positive % get the same boost but based on the % of loyal members. 

This way it is up to all loyal members to try and maintain a loyal crew - otherwise infighting ensues and CL's/Upper structures are toppled.
(if that makes sense?)

 

Just my 2 pennies worth :D

The loyalty aspect is open to abuse, hence CL's should be selective over members they invite.

This abuse can not be prevented as you're not allowed to ask a persons bloodline, no one would ever get an invite other than friends.